Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Presidential Election Thread] All Hail the Liberty Rooster.

Posts

Am I reading it wrong, or is that saying you can't give anything of value in return for voting/not voting for someone/something. Technically, I think since they weren't withholding sandwiches from people who didn't say they'd vote one way or the other, that's not coercive?

Doesn't really matter, because this is going absolutely nowhere. I'm just curious.

It also counts if it's an incentive to vote or not vote, period.

Was it incentivizing, though? If they were sitting outside a polling place and only giving sandwiches to people on the way out, that'd certainly qualify. But is "Here's a sandwich. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow" the same thing?

Since it's just a mental exercise, I'm not going to belabor this tangent any further.

I think the law has to be vague enough to cover that, or your example becomes "Here's a $20. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow." and "Oh, I wasn't being partisan, I just happened to be outside the local republican/democrat rally." The lines between acceptable/not acceptable just blur too easily.

Stories like this make me wonder how much Romney wishes Cain was still in the race, someone to act like a bigger circus act to divert the media's attention.

Am I reading it wrong, or is that saying you can't give anything of value in return for voting/not voting for someone/something. Technically, I think since they weren't withholding sandwiches from people who didn't say they'd vote one way or the other, that's not coercive?

Doesn't really matter, because this is going absolutely nowhere. I'm just curious.

It also counts if it's an incentive to vote or not vote, period.

Was it incentivizing, though? If they were sitting outside a polling place and only giving sandwiches to people on the way out, that'd certainly qualify. But is "Here's a sandwich. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow" the same thing?

Since it's just a mental exercise, I'm not going to belabor this tangent any further.

I think the law has to be vague enough to cover that, or your example becomes "Here's a $20. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow." and "Oh, I wasn't being partisan, I just happened to be outside the local republican/democrat rally." The lines between acceptable/not acceptable just blur too easily.

Stories like this make me wonder how much Romney wishes Cain was still in the race, someone to act like a bigger circus act to divert the media's attention.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

As an aside, is it weird that I kinda like arguing semantics and technicalities in instances where there's really nothing at stake but abhor it when the debate means something?

Am I reading it wrong, or is that saying you can't give anything of value in return for voting/not voting for someone/something. Technically, I think since they weren't withholding sandwiches from people who didn't say they'd vote one way or the other, that's not coercive?

Doesn't really matter, because this is going absolutely nowhere. I'm just curious.

It also counts if it's an incentive to vote or not vote, period.

Was it incentivizing, though? If they were sitting outside a polling place and only giving sandwiches to people on the way out, that'd certainly qualify. But is "Here's a sandwich. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow" the same thing?

Since it's just a mental exercise, I'm not going to belabor this tangent any further.

I think the law has to be vague enough to cover that, or your example becomes "Here's a $20. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow." and "Oh, I wasn't being partisan, I just happened to be outside the local republican/democrat rally." The lines between acceptable/not acceptable just blur too easily.

Stories like this make me wonder how much Romney wishes Cain was still in the race, someone to act like a bigger circus act to divert the media's attention.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

As an aside, is it weird that I kinda like arguing semantics and technicalities in instances where there's really nothing at stake but abhor it when the debate means something?

Am I reading it wrong, or is that saying you can't give anything of value in return for voting/not voting for someone/something. Technically, I think since they weren't withholding sandwiches from people who didn't say they'd vote one way or the other, that's not coercive?

Doesn't really matter, because this is going absolutely nowhere. I'm just curious.

It also counts if it's an incentive to vote or not vote, period.

Was it incentivizing, though? If they were sitting outside a polling place and only giving sandwiches to people on the way out, that'd certainly qualify. But is "Here's a sandwich. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow" the same thing?

Since it's just a mental exercise, I'm not going to belabor this tangent any further.

I think the law has to be vague enough to cover that, or your example becomes "Here's a $20. By the way, make sure you vote tomorrow." and "Oh, I wasn't being partisan, I just happened to be outside the local republican/democrat rally." The lines between acceptable/not acceptable just blur too easily.

Stories like this make me wonder how much Romney wishes Cain was still in the race, someone to act like a bigger circus act to divert the media's attention.

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

As an aside, is it weird that I kinda like arguing semantics and technicalities in instances where there's really nothing at stake but abhor it when the debate means something?

In state after state, Romney has grown less popular the longer the campaign wears on and the better voters get to know him. The same thing happened in 2008, the first time Romney sought the GOP nomination.

The former Massachusetts governor remains competitive with Obama even though the president is viewed much more positively, according to polls. But Romney's image problem heightens the already formidable task he faces in November, trying to dislodge an incumbent spared the costly and divisive intraparty battle that Republicans have waged.

Taken together, the results are striking. In Ohio, perhaps the single most important fall battleground, a recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Romney was viewed more unfavorably after the March primary than favorably, a reversal of his standing as recently as mid-January.

The same is true elsewhere. Michigan, where Romney was born, once offered a prime opportunity to flip a state that went for Obama four years ago. But after hosting one of the most bruising contests of the Republican race — a knockdown that Romney won in a squeaker — Michigan seems to have reverted safely back to the Democratic column.

The damage extends beyond battleground states. Obama has gained considerable ground against Romney in head-to-head matchups nationally, pulling into a modest lead thanks to his greatly improved standing among independent voters, the swing group that is vital to winning the White House.
A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found that a record 50% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the GOP front-runner and just 34% had a favorable view, the lowest rating for any leading presidential hopeful in decades.

They need a game changing VP candidate... AND they need Obama to actually mess up on something big, and not the "mountains out of molehills" crap or the stuff they just make up.

They need a real blunder out of the Oval office for any chance at this point, and they know it.

Actually, the really twisted part is that to have absolutely any chance in hell to win, the far right (and their presumptive candidate) need to hope for something catastrophic to happen with either Iran or Europe. They are literally sitting at home praying that by some time in October Iran tries to close the Strait of Hormuz and we end up with $7/gal gas, or the Euro collapses and drags us into another Great Depression.

In state after state, Romney has grown less popular the longer the campaign wears on and the better voters get to know him. The same thing happened in 2008, the first time Romney sought the GOP nomination.

The former Massachusetts governor remains competitive with Obama even though the president is viewed much more positively, according to polls. But Romney's image problem heightens the already formidable task he faces in November, trying to dislodge an incumbent spared the costly and divisive intraparty battle that Republicans have waged.

Taken together, the results are striking. In Ohio, perhaps the single most important fall battleground, a recent Quinnipiac University poll found that Romney was viewed more unfavorably after the March primary than favorably, a reversal of his standing as recently as mid-January.

The same is true elsewhere. Michigan, where Romney was born, once offered a prime opportunity to flip a state that went for Obama four years ago. But after hosting one of the most bruising contests of the Republican race — a knockdown that Romney won in a squeaker — Michigan seems to have reverted safely back to the Democratic column.

The damage extends beyond battleground states. Obama has gained considerable ground against Romney in head-to-head matchups nationally, pulling into a modest lead thanks to his greatly improved standing among independent voters, the swing group that is vital to winning the White House.
A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found that a record 50% of Americans had an unfavorable view of the GOP front-runner and just 34% had a favorable view, the lowest rating for any leading presidential hopeful in decades.

We need the media saying that Romney is going to become president, blow up the earth, and the Void will open up and Khorne will consume us all, and we'll all have to flee to New Zealand only to find out the Orks have taken over.

Ugh, I'll never forget the Democratic Primaries and General Election. I felt like the world was gonna end.

I think Huckabee would be a really good choice for Romney. It won't be all he needs to win, but it would bridge over a few people who are heavily in the "not Romney" camp and help them hold their nose and vote as opposed to sit at home and not vote; lets be honest, the "not Romneys" sure as shit aren't voting for Obama.

Huckabee + an international financial crisis plus Obama being caught in an affair or something.... that's about what he needs to win.

The problem with relying on hatred of Obama is that it is a terrible motivator because people can learn to live with it and if Romney seems the same as Obama, it just really isn't worth showing up at the polls. Fear is slightly better but then it's only a good motivator if people actually fear for their lives, I'd wager more Americans are more fearful of GOP policies brutally, fucking them over than the ones who think Obama's policies will do the same. The other downside with the fear mongering is that you have to be both somewhat subtle, being to blatant about it will blow up in one's face, and make sure your base doesn't go batshit crazy, if they do that could make side seem nuts to independent voters.

In all likelihood, the Dems may actually get more votes from people who fear and/or hate the GOP's regressive policies than the GOP will get from people who hate and/or fear the policies of the Democrats. Ironically, if the GOP does more to drive up their vote count from those sources, it's liable to also drive up the count for the Dems as well.

Being liked by potentially voters is important because the GOP has done a pretty good job of ensuring that voting isn't an easy and convenient task. If you're already struggling to pay your bills, you're less likely to take time off from work, earning less for the week, if you don't like anyone on the ballot. If you have to drive a decent way to you polling place and it's a shitty drive, you're less likely to go to it if you don't like anyone one the ballot. As I understand it, you have to jump through hoops to do absentee voting and if people don't like the candidates they may not bother with it (I'm less familiar with the other early voting methods - so I'm not going to comment). If you are a crazy, regressive fundie who does shows up at the ballots, their is no guarantee that you'll still vote Republican if you don't like Romney because his party isn't going to be the only crazy show in town. In fact, lack of enthusiasm for Romney could make the crazies start looking at the crazy third parties for a change and actually vote for them if they feel that there is no difference between Romney and Obama.

They need a game changing VP candidate... AND they need Obama to actually mess up on something big, and not the "mountains out of molehills" crap or the stuff they just make up.

They need a real blunder out of the Oval office for any chance at this point, and they know it.

Do they even have a game-changing VP candidate this year? The last one was Palin and that blew up in their faces.

As I was saying earlier, the VP pick is going to have to be very specific to give any real help this cycle.

Romney already has the rank-and-file locked up, but the Fundies are out for blood, and the Establishment doesn't want them to have it because they scare away everyone else.

It needs to be someone who the fundies / teapers LIKE, but is charismatic enough and just plain likable enough to not generate any massively negative feelings for the middle.

Someone who can handle a solid speaking tour to rally the base would be nice as well as someone who won't vomit word-salad in the middle of an interview.

but all the big names are probably waiting until 2016; and the prominent new players fear getting tarnished with the brush of defeat. Edwards probably was helped a bit by running in 04 (he failed in 08 because he was Edwards) and Palin certainly made it out of 08 covered in rightwing glory, but I don't think going down with the Romney ship will be a good career move for anyone.

Ryan won't go with him because he probably wants to keep his seat so he can keep trying to shiv Medicare while we're distracted with other stuff.

I can do what I want. Don't you get that yet? I win, and I'm the president. I lose, and I'm walking a beach in California, with $250 million reasons to do absolutely nothing, and you're back home in the underwater split-level, sending your money to TV preachers, waiting on hold for Rush, and dreaming sweet dreams about the former governor of Alaska.

This fits in perfectly with the piece they did last night on Maddow on how Romney keeps trying to use the ol Rove tactic on Obama. Except that Mittens tries to do it with absolutely everything, because he really doesn't have anything else.